In armed combat hundreds/thousands of innocent people will get killed which I assume you would consider acceptable or would you also like to ban the armed forces too?

How many convictions for murder have been overturned in the last 50 years - in those cases some people will have many years in prison wrongly - so if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should not put anyone in prison just in case we get it wrong?

I agree with both points - the death penalty should be an option and again you then come down to the subjectivity of the judge.

Thats just crazy.

Judges don't have a great deal of subjectivity at the moment, especially in murder charges, they can't for instance decide that six months probation would be best for one particular case and then get out of bed in a foul mood the next day and give another murderer forty years and no probation.

The only time that the death sentence has been considered in this generations lifetime is for the murder of police officers and given the esteem that most police forces are held in now, and the esteem for which the current government have for the police (and vice-versa) then I doubt very much that that consideration is on the agenda at all.

The judge would decide whether a death sentence would be appropriate and different judges will have different views. We see this everyday and I gave an example of subjectivity in sentencing with the RL players.

The death sentence in this generation seems to have been considered for jihadists as well?

There are lots of topics on here that are pie in the sky doesn't stop them getting debated?

Apart from saving some money - debatable when you look at the USA and how long and how lucrative the appeals must be for those in the law business - what else would you hope to achieve by having a death sentence for certain categories ?

Do you honestly believe that murders in those categories would decrease, do you have any proof of countries of a similar social standing to the UK where, say, mass murder is unheard of because of a death sentence policy ?

Or is it just about revenge ?

Evidence from the US, in states where capital punishment was re-introduced, suggest that the murder rate increased after the reintroduction.

The judge may accept a majority decision in some cases, but the fact remains that each individual juror who convicts has to be 100% sure that the person is guilty. And as I pointed out before, even a unanimous verdict can be the wrong one.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you really saying that the death penalty should be available in cases where the verdict is unanimous, but not where a person is found guilty by majority verdict? Can't you see any problems with that?



They are instructed to be sure beyond reasonable doubt before convicting, not on balance of probabilities. If your contention is that some will ignore that advice and convict on balance of probabilities, then that's even more reason not to bring back the death penalty, wouldn't you say?

The only one benefit i can see with the death penalty is as a bargaining tool pre trial for prosecutors.

No they don 't, the test is beyond reasonable doubt, a long way short of 100% certainty.

As I said before, if they had a reasonable doubt, they wouldn't be 100% sure.